Published on 9 May 2022

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 14230/18 Mustafa ER against Turkey lodged on 15 March 2018 communicated on 22 April 2022

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the rejection, on the basis of a legal provision that came into force after the civil proceedings were brought, of a restitution request concerning an expropriated land which, according to the applicant, was no longer used in line with public interest.

During the course of the proceedings, on 10 September 2014, a new paragraph was added to Article 22 of Law no. 2942. That new provision set forth that the application of Article 22 would be subject to a five-year time ‑ limit starting from the date the expropriation decision became final. In accordance with this amendment, the action was dismissed as being lodged out of time.

Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant complains of the retroactive application of the paragraph added to Article 22, which, according to him, deprived him of his right to restitution.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. What is the current situation of the land subject to the application? In this context, the parties are invited to provide the Court with information on the current use and status of the land, especially in the zoning plan.

2. After the land subject to the application was expropriated on 7 August 1998, what actions were taken regarding the land? In this context, has there been a use in accordance with the purpose of expropriation or another public interest? If not, did such a situation violate the right of the applicant to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the convention (see Motais de Narbonne v. France , no. 48161/99, 2 July 2002)?

3. Did the applicant have a " legitimate expectation " to obtain the restitution of his former property pursuant to the provisions of Law no. 2942? If so, did the domestic courts’ dismissal of the applicant’s case by retroactive application of a legal provision which had entered into force during the course of the proceedings, violate his right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Maurice v France [GC] no. 11810/03, ECHR 2005-IX, and Kamoy Radyo Televizyon ve Yayıncılık ve Organizasyon A.S.v. Turkey , no. 19965/06, 16 April 2019)?

4. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the retroactive application of the additional paragraph of Article 22 of Law no. 2942 comply with the requirements of a fair trial (see Cabourdin v. France , no. 60796/00, 11 April 2006)?

5. With regard to question n o 3, the parties are invited to provide the Court with the relevant case-law of the domestic courts on Article 22 of Law no. 2942 (see Çifçiler Joint Stock Company and others v. Turkey (dec.), nos. 62323/09 and 64965/09, §§ 48-49, 24 November 2020)?